Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I really loved the Tasha Yar character, and I can think of so many different routes the writers could have taken in fleshing out her character. As much as I love TNG, I really do think that the show can be seen as a failure in terms of character development on a drama series... it was always a story driven show (besides some real solid development Data). Tasha Yar had the potential to be a great, conflicted character on the show... something that we didn't see much of in TNG.

__________________
Back in my day, people had clever signatures. Not like this one.

__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q

Had she stayed, we would have had no "Yesterday's Enterprise" the same way, or Sela. We'd have probably still had an altered "YE" and no Sela is a good thing by me. Worf wouldn't have been as overexposed, and might have gone to DS9 from the start, two more good things.

Eh, I don't think Sela herself is a problem... I think the fact that they went out of the way to create this character, use her only a few times, build her up, but still we wonder "Why bother with the Tasha Yar's Daughter thing? What does this add to the story?"

Ultimately she was useless. Besides, we had a much better Recurring Romulan character. Tomalok.

Tomalok only had a few short appearances but was actually a lot more memorable and was a much better thought out character.

I think Yar dying in the line of Duty was the way to go... What actually impressed me about the episode was, they didn't have a long "Maybe we can save her" sequence where everyone tears up. She's dead, in sickbay, nothing they can do, story moves forward. Gets the memorial at the end,and the episode's done. To have that happen to a major character is actually quite ballsy.

Episode #10 "Hide and Q" made me think, too. When Yar was in the "penalty box", she was sitting by herself alone on the bridge, and she looked totally abject and helpless, and it bothered me. It did so because I knew in about 16 episodes, she would be dead, and that did not sit well with me. She had so much potential, and again, while I love that Worf was developed (he eventually became one of my favorite characters), I just think Tasha could have had that same chance.

I have always had a soft spot for the characters who get killed off because the writers 'can't work with their character' - I always think something along the lines of 'give ME a crack at them, I could do something!' Tasha especially, since she's a fascinating character - all the other main cast are these people who have lived the good life in the heart of the Federation, while she grew up on a colony that 'failed' (don't quite understand that - if the colony failed, how exactly are there still people there?)

Sadly, Tasha's character was a victim of two things - the writers trying to put a female in a position that traditionally was a 'man's' role while also trying to make it seem a casual 'yeah, happens all the time, and, the bigger problem of the two, the 'our characters DON'T' clause that Gene put in for TNG. Her existence on Turkana IV would have been filled with occasions were she engaged in activities that Gene had dictated that our character would not do, and as such, it made it hard to do anything with her, because she wouldn't have been allowed to draw on her prior experiences, given that as a character, they were things that she should have done, but as a Gene Roddenberry character, she wasn't allowed to do.

I know Star Trek wouldn't be around without him, but I firmly feel that by the time of TNG's production, Gene had bought into his own hype and let himself believe that all it took to overcome these inherent human traits he deemed as being 'negative' was the power of positive thinking - if TNG Gene had worked on TOS, we wouldn't have had the Spock-Bones banter, because the characters were 'too evolved' for such arguments. All the TNG characters suffered because of the 'our characters DON'T' rule, but none so much as Tasha - if that hadn't been a rule, I would not be surprised if Denise Crosby would have wanted to remain with the show.

__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q

I have always had a soft spot for the characters who get killed off because the writers 'can't work with their character' - I always think something along the lines of 'give ME a crack at them, I could do something!' Tasha especially, since she's a fascinating character - all the other main cast are these people who have lived the good life in the heart of the Federation, while she grew up on a colony that 'failed' (don't quite understand that - if the colony failed, how exactly are there still people there?)

Sadly, Tasha's character was a victim of two things - the writers trying to put a female in a position that traditionally was a 'man's' role while also trying to make it seem a casual 'yeah, happens all the time, and, the bigger problem of the two, the 'our characters DON'T' clause that Gene put in for TNG. Her existence on Turkana IV would have been filled with occasions were she engaged in activities that Gene had dictated that our character would not do, and as such, it made it hard to do anything with her, because she wouldn't have been allowed to draw on her prior experiences, given that as a character, they were things that she should have done, but as a Gene Roddenberry character, she wasn't allowed to do.

I know Star Trek wouldn't be around without him, but I firmly feel that by the time of TNG's production, Gene had bought into his own hype and let himself believe that all it took to overcome these inherent human traits he deemed as being 'negative' was the power of positive thinking - if TNG Gene had worked on TOS, we wouldn't have had the Spock-Bones banter, because the characters were 'too evolved' for such arguments. All the TNG characters suffered because of the 'our characters DON'T' rule, but none so much as Tasha - if that hadn't been a rule, I would not be surprised if Denise Crosby would have wanted to remain with the show.

Agreed. I can't help but become disgruntled with Gene at times because of that. He became too strict, too rigid, and it was a shame, but then no one is perfect. I just wish he would have relented somewhat on that line of thought.

I think what GR missed out on was that it wasn't that viewers who bought into the optimistic Trek future wanted perfect humans, they wanted to relate to "better" humans who fought and successfully overcame their lesser natures on the show, not somewhere in the past or off-screen. Kirk wasn't perfect - he didn't always have confidence he was doing the right thing or have the answer right off, but he would find it.

Having Tasha have to fight to overcome her upbringing (or lack thereof) sometimes would have been better.

__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q

I remember liking the character when I first watched the series. I was sad to see her leave the series. However, now I find it tough to even watch Denise Crosby in the role...she is such a horrible actress...

I think what GR missed out on was that it wasn't that viewers who bought into the optimistic Trek future wanted perfect humans, they wanted to relate to "better" humans who fought and successfully overcame their lesser natures on the show, not somewhere in the past or off-screen. Kirk wasn't perfect - he didn't always have confidence he was doing the right thing or have the answer right off, but he would find it.

Having Tasha have to fight to overcome her upbringing (or lack thereof) sometimes would have been better.

Yes, I think that would have been a great opportunity for everyone involved.

KingstonTrekker wrote:

I remember liking the character when I first watched the series. I was sad to see her leave the series. However, now I find it tough to even watch Denise Crosby in the role...she is such a horrible actress...

To be fair, none of them did very well with the stilted dialogue and poor stories of the first season. I mean, look at Worf season one, and then season seven. Two totally different actors in a way. I think in time she would have found her footing.